Technical Performance Assessment and Quality Control of Ultrasound Device Monitors

• Published in: Ultrasound in medicine & biology Vol. 49; no. 1; pp. 380 - 387
• Main Authors: Vuorenmaa, Anna, Siitama, Eetu, Hakulinen, Ullamari, Eskola, Hannu
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Inc 01.01.2023
• Subjects: Ambient luminance; Ambient ratio; Diagnostic Imaging; Humans; Luminance; Luminance ratio; Luminance uniformity; Quality Control; Ultrasound device display; United States; United States; Ambient luminance; Luminance uniformity; Ultrasound device display; Luminance; Luminance ratio; Ambient ratio
• ISSN: 0301-5629; 1879-291X
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2022.08.019

The purpose of this study was to investigate and evaluate the current technical performance of ultrasound imaging device displays. Altogether 53 ultrasound device displays were evaluated in two hospital districts of Finland. The performance of the displays was evaluated with tests and test patterns developed by American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM). Minimum, maximum and ambient luminances (Lmin,Lmax,Lamb) were measured. Ambient ratio (AR), luminance ratio (LR), L′min and L′max were calculated, and luminance uniformity, defined as deviation from the median (MLD), was evaluated. The results indicate that none of the measured displays fulfill the AAPM Task Group (TG) 270 maximum luminance recommendation for diagnostic displays. A majority (32/53, 60%) of the displays fail the AAPM TG270 acceptable level for secondary displays as well. Only 3 of 53 (6%) displays were at the acceptable level for diagnostic displays. Also, for most of the displays (41/53, 77%), L′min was under the diagnostic acceptable level. Ambient ratios exceeded the acceptable limit in 31 of 53 (58%) displays. Luminance ratios, on the other hand, were within acceptable levels for the majority of displays (38/53, 72%). All devices passed the AAPM requirement for luminance uniformity (MLD). The results indicate that the maximum luminance and minimum luminance of most displays are not sufficient. AAPM, the Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine and the American College of Radiology introduced the updated luminance L′min and L′max criteria in 2012. All ultrasound displays should at least fulfill the AAPM TG18 secondary display minimum criteria. Even so, 6 of 53 (11%) fail. The newest displays should be expected to fulfill the revised AAPM TG270 criteria as well. Display technology has developed, and therefore, monitor testing needs to be updated.